CPU Comparison

Two 32-core server processors, both built on 5 nm processes, both aimed at the same socket-class battles, yet they carve out very different niches in the benchmark data. The Intel Xeon 6730P, a Granite Rapids part, and the AMD EPYC 9384X, a Genoa-X chip, are separated by an average benchmark score of just 3.6% in favor of the Intel part (124,756 vs 120,427). However, a closer look at the individual workload results reveals that the 6730P is not merely a faster version of the 9384X; it is a specialized tool for compute-heavy tasks, while the AMD chip demonstrates clear superiority in memory-sensitive and cryptographic workloads. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, specification differences, and architectural choices that define these two distinct server platforms.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6730P is the clear winner in raw computational throughput and instruction-level parallelism. It wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with its most dominant victories coming in floating-point math, extended instructions, and prime number finding. This makes it the stronger choice for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload that relies heavily on vectorized code or complex mathematical operations. The data shows a consistent 6.4% advantage across all Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, which indicates a fundamental architectural edge in general-purpose execution rather than a quirk of one specific benchmark.

The AMD EPYC 9384X, while losing the overall count, wins the workloads that matter most for database, virtualization, and content delivery applications. Its 22.9% lead in data encryption is massive, pointing to a hardware-accelerated path for security-focused tasks. It also wins in integer math, physics calculations, and random string sorting, which are typical of database indexing, sorting algorithms, and certain scientific simulations. The 9384X also edges out the Intel part in single-threaded PassMark performance (3015 vs 2995), a narrow 0.7% margin, suggesting that for lightly threaded tasks that are memory-latency-bound, the AMD chip has a slight edge.

The split is clean: Intel wins on raw compute power and floating-point performance; AMD wins on memory bandwidth, latency-sensitive operations, and cryptographic duties.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6730P has an average benchmark score of 124,756, which is 3.6% higher than the AMD EPYC 9384X’s 120,427. The Intel part also holds a 97th percentile ranking among all CPUs, matching the AMD chip’s percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-threaded Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 6730P scores 62,996 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 6.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9384X’s 59,215. This consistent 6.4% delta is present across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single and multi-core.

Q: In which workload does the AMD EPYC 9384X have its largest performance advantage?

A: The largest win for the AMD EPYC 9384X is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 72,631 compared to the Intel’s 55,964, a lead of 22.9%. This is a significant margin that suggests a dedicated encryption instruction set advantage.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has a twelve-channel memory bus delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6730P has an eight-channel bus providing 409.6 GB/s. The AMD part’s higher bandwidth helps explain its wins in memory-intensive tasks like random string sorting.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon 6730P has 288 MB of shared L3 cache. This 2.67x difference in cache size is a primary architectural differentiator.

Q: Is there a difference in the number of PCIe lanes?

A: Yes. The AMD EPYC 9384X provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon 6730P provides 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). This gives the AMD part more headroom for high-speed storage and GPU expansion.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the uniformity of Intel’s victories in compute-heavy tests. Across all six Cinebench benchmarks (R15, R20, R23, each with single and multi-core variants), the Intel Xeon 6730P wins by exactly 6.4%. The scores are 6,349 vs 5,968 in R15 multi-core, 896 vs 842 in R15 single-core, 26,458 vs 24,870 in R20 multi-core, 3,735 vs 3,510 in R20 single-core, 62,996 vs 59,215 in R23 multi-core, and 8,893 vs 8,359 in R23 single-core. This consistency strongly suggests a per-clock instruction throughput advantage for the Granite Rapids architecture, not a scaling benefit from higher boost clocks.

The PassMark suite reveals where AMD strikes back. The 9384X’s 22.9% lead in data encryption (72,631 vs 55,964) is the single largest margin in the entire comparison. In integer math, the AMD part wins a closer contest, scoring 297,833 vs 290,740, a 2.4% edge. Physics calculations also favor AMD, with a 9,332 vs 8,606 result (7.8% win), and random string sorting goes to AMD at 119,440 vs 113,919 (4.6% win). The narrowest margin of all is in PassMark single-thread, where the AMD chip wins 3,015 to 2,995, a 0.7% difference.

Intel’s PassMark wins are decisive. Floating-point math shows a 29.9% advantage (226,838 vs 174,630), extended instructions a 29.4% advantage (96,204 vs 74,363), and find prime numbers a 15.1% advantage (686 vs 596). Data compression is a closer Intel win at 1,138,470 vs 1,119,983 (1.7%), and multithreaded performance is a 6.4% Intel win (74,113 vs 69,665), mirroring the Cinebench results. The data paints a clear picture: for any workload dominated by floating-point arithmetic or SIMD-style instructions, the Intel part is categorically faster, often by large margins.

Specification Differences

The two processors share the same core and thread counts (32 cores, 64 threads), both use DDR5 memory, both support ECC, and both lack integrated graphics. They also have similar boost clocks, with the AMD part at 3.90 GHz and the Intel part at 3.80 GHz. However, the base clocks differ, with the EPYC 9384X running at 3.10 GHz compared to the Xeon’s 2.50 GHz.

The most significant specification divergence is in cache. The AMD EPYC 9384X features 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon 6730P has 288 MB. The per-core L1 cache also differs, with Intel using 112 KB per core and AMD using 64 KB per core. L2 cache is 2 MB per core on Intel and 1 MB per core on AMD. The AMD part has a twelve-channel memory bus (460.8 GB/s) versus Intel’s eight-channel bus (409.6 GB/s), and it also has more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88). The TDP is higher on AMD at 320 W, compared to Intel’s 250 W. Sockets are incompatible, with AMD using Socket SP5 and Intel using Socket 4710.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Intel Xeon 6730P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 5 nm process. It uses a dual-die design with a total die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 9384X is a Zen 4 part from the Genoa-X family, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It uses eight chiplets, each 72 mm², totaling 90,160 million transistors.

The cache architecture is the most telling difference. AMD’s Genoa-X design stacks massive L3 cache (768 MB) to feed the 32 cores, which explains its dominance in data encryption, random string sorting, and physics. These workloads are often bounded by memory latency and cache hit rates. Intel’s Granite Rapids, with its smaller 288 MB L3 but larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, appears optimized for streaming compute and floating-point throughput, as evidenced by its 29.9% lead in floating-point math.

The Intel part also boasts a newer release date (2025-02-23) compared to AMD’s (2023-06-12), and while both are 5 nm parts, they come from different foundries (Intel vs TSMC). The AMD chip’s higher TDP (320 W vs 250 W) suggests more power headroom for its higher base clock and larger cache array, but the Intel part achieves higher benchmark scores in most tests despite a lower power envelope. The fundamental design philosophies could not be more different: Intel uses larger dual-die silicon with deep per-core caches, while AMD uses a chiplet approach with a colossal shared L3 to overcome memory bottlenecks.